On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 15:42 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 16:33:59 -0500, Peter Jones <pjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11/17/2010 03:41 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 21:46:09 +0100, FranÃois Cami<fdc-lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> IIRC broken proprietary drivers never stopped us from shipping, but I > > >> could be wrong. > > > > > > Officially. Unofficially, it was probably a contributing factor. > > > > No, I don't think so. We've certainly shipped with code that broke any given > > one of these before. > > I am refering to the case referred to here: > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2006-August/088541.html > > There was a lot of discussion and speculation about this at the time. That was about updating FC5 after it shipped. An OS that went gold on 20 May 2006, three months before the post you're referencing. We've never broken X server ABI in any Fedora release as far as I'm aware, for basically the same reason you don't bump sonames after release. That thread sure is a flashback though. Turns out the things I was saying four years ago, I still believe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2006-August/088641.html Breaking proprietary drivers has _never_ been a ship criteria while I've been in charge. Remember F9, when we shipped an xserver 1.5 snapshot before all the binary drivers were ported? I got a lot of shit for that, that was pretty sweet. Turns out you get criticized no matter what you do, even if you're unflinchingly consistent for five years. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
